See, my point in general is that it doesnt need that centralised arbitration or imposed restriction, and shouldnt have it for one huge reason
- doesnt need it: people still by CDs and there doesnt need to be a mechanism to force people to. People that download illegally buy more cds and a calm and level view says to allow it, even encourage it, in order to let the natural tendency of people wanting to have an object take its course. They just need to, as my boss is fond of saying to or of our advisees when we're advising things that are counterintuitive or seem risky but are in fact well supported by the available evidence 'be brave' (ignore the gut response, use your head)
- shouldnt have arbitration, as thats legislated protection of business against consumer interest and consumption patterns. I've said it before; business has no right to be protected and no right to force people to buy its produce - its either successful off its own back, resourcefulness and adaptability or it isnt.
The games thing is a good example, actually, and another bugbear of mine. I sporadically play PC games, I've never downloaded a game and owned every single one I've played save, I think, 2 (out of dozens; those 2 were copied from a mates downloads). The situation there is the use of DRM to restrict the number of installations, force online activation, install secondary software that the user is unaware of that monitors the PC and installs its own drivers and ties games to a particular user account, meaning that if you want to sell it you have to give your access details to whomever you sell it to. Not all these happen in the same DRM, but thats the sort of stuff they do between them. Its basically treating paying customers like thieves and all purchased games as long term rentals. Ironically people that use pirated games get a copy that doesnt do that. Many people didnt buy the games because of the DRM and many got a pirated copy. Some even bought the game, so that they've paid as a matter of principle and then actually used and played a pirated version!
Go on amazon and look at reviews for spore, bioshock, crysis warhead, mass effect, far cry 2 - the reviews of the games themselves are pretty good, but the actual scores are low because many people that reviewed attacked the DRM, and rightly so.
Now, the good part: some of those games have been patched to remove the DRM, sequels to those games dont have it or have a stripped down version that only performs a disk check. The publishers learned; they responded to the outcry and the lack of sales (I for one didnt buy any of those save crysis, and then only because I didnt know it had this cr@p, which is half the problem).
Another interesting view thats quite pertinent can be provided by Stardock Games. They have a manifesto. It reads
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the internet every time they wish to play.
10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.
Its tongue in cheek, but they stick by it (though I have heard of some subtle ammendments being made, I dont know what they are). The best parts - their games are popular, they are well respected, they retain their value in the new market as well as any other PC game, their equivelent of Steam (they call it impulse) - software that controls access to the game, is opt-in, not forced, and allows you to download the game as many times as you want removing the need for the hardcopy. I have a couple of their games and they come with serial numbers which arent used in the installation; they arent CD keys - they're website/impulse access keys that allow you to get updates and use the infinite-download facility.
All this practice seems idiotic, the enemy of profit, surely people will take advantage. As it turns out, their Honours-System rights control isnt exploited any more than any draconian, prohibitive system that the likes of EA games tried. And, from the fact that they're still kicking out games, they seem to be doing well.
I think that people that are going to copy material illegally will do so regardless. The technology makes a red-queen-effect battle between pirates and devs/labels/distributors inevitable. Theres no way to stop it, theres no way to restrict it and theres no way to force recompense. The reason I find stardocks model interesting because it assumes that people will pay for what they like and want, and be more inclined to do so if they, the distributor, treat the customers with respect, it doesnt try to treat customers as potential thieves and impose strong access control or go to war against free copying of the material they release, and its doing very well.
They're the only example that comes to mind of a company that is affected by peer to peer copying of their media who have found a way to coexist successfully with it in a fashion that allows people that would be paying customers to be happy and hand over their money, and leaves those that would copy it for free to do so, because they're almost certainly going to anyway. They're 'being brave' :lol: But it works.
I think addition of a time-out or limited number or plays will produce the same effect - people wont go for it, some people will not buy it at all, some people will go get a pirated version that doesnt have the restrictions and the industry wont benefit; they're end up doing the same thing that the publishers that used DRM in games did: have the remove it because their sales and their reputation are suffering.
